Why can`t one sense god?

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Let the person I asked the question answer it objectively rather than just making commentary on every post you come across. 

I can't help it, I'm very bored...

[Dis n Dat]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I can't help it, I'm very bored...

OK. 

[Intoscience]

35 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Let the person I asked the question answer it objectively rather than just making commentary on every post you come across. 

The OP is not likely to reply based on posting history - 4 new topics all on the same day, no response to any as yet. 

So while we are waiting maybe you would like to give us your thoughts on the subject? 

[Dis n Dat]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The OP is not likely to reply based on posting history - 4 new topics all on the same day, no response to any as yet. 

So while we are waiting maybe you would like to give us your thoughts on the subject? 

It would always depend upon your concept of God. It also depends on your epistemology. 

Even as an atheist, if a person is addressing someone's concept of God, he should understand it. So without understanding the posters idea about God even if it's a third party understanding, it just cannot be responded to. Unless of course it's just some sarcastic comment without any substance. 

Hope you understand. 

But if you personally think the other persons God concept is like a rock or a thing that exists in the physical world, then the OP is valid. But if you think God is metaphysical, it's nuanced. Most people do not believe in a physical God. In fact, as i remember over 50% of the world are either Muslim or Christian and they all believe in a metaphysical God. Also, the Hindu's believe their God or Brahman is metaphysical and physical in the sense of pantheism so they philosophically would respond to the OP by saying you feel God everywhere. He is the wind, the ground, and you yourself. Also some Muslims like the Ibn Arabi followers in the Sufi school will say the same. 

Hope you understand. 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Even as an atheist, if a person is addressing someone's concept of God, he should understand it. So without understanding the posters idea about God even if it's a third party understanding, it just cannot be responded to.

Even when believers use the same name to describe their personally preferred version of god, studies show that god tends to aligned with the persons self-image.

People quite literally manufacture god in their own image (as opposed to the commonly used refrain that humans are created in gods image... gods are shaped and created in the image of ourselves). 

God is based on personal ego. The definitions each individual use to describe it are ego-centric, so all you're saying is we must respond to the person with whom we're interacting. Uhm... okay... thanks Captain Obvious. 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908374106

[Dis n Dat]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

People quite literally manufacture god in their own image

Please provide your evidence to this claim. 

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

Please provide your evidence to this claim. 

I did. Have you been diagnosed with reading comprehension problems?

[Dis n Dat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I did. Have you been diagnosed with reading comprehension problems?

Have studied the study you provided? It's a correspondence study, not causal, and is giving a sample size thus cannot be universal, based on questions, which means it could easily be caught up in problems with research. It's not evidence to your universal claim that people make their Gods in their own image. Unless you change your claim to "some people" then it's an acceptable logical statement for anything like that is a logical possibility. 

I think you should try your best to be a little decent in your discussion unless you catch me pretending I know something when I don't or something like that. 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

It's a correspondence study, not causal

Are ANY studies "causal?" Your unreasonable thresholds continue to be... well... unreasonable. 

13 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

I think you should try your best to be a little decent

This is me being decent. I've been holding back. 

[Dis n Dat]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Are ANY studies "causal?" Your unreasonable thresholds continue to be... well... unreasonable. 

If no study is "causal", then no study can be taken as absolute truth of any kind of causation. And I gave a few other reasons. 

 

 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

If no study is "causal", then no study can be taken as absolute truth

Who's taking ANY studies as "absolute truth?"

The preponderance of evidence rather consistently suggests that when asked to describe "god" or "gods," respondents rather consistently form said god(s) using characteristics and values they prioritize in themselves as part of their own self-image.

God is nearly always ego-centric. We quite literally make god in our own image. 

If you have strong evidence to the contrary, then I'm completely willing to reconsider my provisional acceptance of the validity of this conclusion. 

[Dis n Dat]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Who's taking ANY studies as "absolute truth?"

You made an absolute claim. Or are you saying "some"?

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

God is nearly always ego-centric. We quite literally make god in our own image. 

 

Okay. This claim is different and I agree with this. This is a common theme in sociology of religion. Agreed. Earlier, you did not say "nearly always". 

Cheers. 

[TheVat]

I have seen God, beyond the confines of my anthropomorphism, and she looks like a toaster.  And all you heretics who doubt the great toaster will be as moldy bread burnt to a charred and inedible crisp in the final breakfast to come.  Not even marmalade will save you.  Repent!  

 

 

[Dis n Dat]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I have seen God, beyond the confines of my anthropomorphism, and she looks like a toaster.  And all you heretics who doubt the great toaster will be as moldy bread burnt to a charred and inedible crisp in the final breakfast to come.  Not even marmalade will save you.  Repent!  

 

 

Hmm. Your God is an electric appliance that was made by a man or ten.  I mean as obviously as could be. No need to argue or give any philosophical rationalisation or reasoning. Just obviously. 

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Even when believers use the same name to describe their personally preferred version of god, studies show that god tends to aligned with the persons self-image.

People quite literally manufacture god in their own image (as opposed to the commonly used refrain that humans are created in gods image... gods are shaped and created in the image of ourselves). 

God is based on personal ego. The definitions each individual use to describe it are ego-centric, so all you're saying is we must respond to the person with whom we're interacting. Uhm... okay... thanks Captain Obvious. 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908374106

I'm quit surprised by this. Though I can understand that if a god is presented as a person then the person imagining that god may well indeed imagine a person from their ethnicity. The classical Christian western image of god being an old man with a long white beard sitting on a large throne in heaven for example, not dissimilar to that of the Greek god Zeus. 

When god is described as a person, then I guess its difficult to image a metaphysical being other than that in the shape of a human being. If god is described alternatively as a force that surrounds and occupies everything then this makes it easier to discard an image of a person. Similar to George Lucas's "force" in the Starwars trilogies. 

In my mind "if" I believed in god then I would imagine something that cannot be imagined at all.    

[Dis n Dat]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In my mind "if" I believed in god then I would imagine something that cannot be imagined at all.    

Interesting. 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm quit surprised by this

Many people were, but it’s been the consensus view for quite some time now.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Dis n Dat said:

Interesting. 

What do you find interesting, I'm intrigued. Is it because my statement is paradoxical? 

[Dis n Dat]

18 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What do you find interesting, I'm intrigued. Is it because my statement is paradoxical? 

I don't think its paradoxical at all. I think it's straightforward. I just like the way you put it. 

[Intoscience]

11 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

I don't think its paradoxical at all. I think it's straightforward. I just like the way you put it. 

So this is the only way I can comprehend something that cannot be imagined in any physical or metaphysical sense or experience we may have or ever encounter/ed.

[Dis n Dat]

Just now, Intoscience said:

So this is the only way I can comprehend something that cannot be imagined in any physical or metaphysical sense or experience we may have or ever encounter/ed.

I get it. 

The word Imagine, the way you used it was also used by a philosopher long ago. I am trying to find his exact statement just to make a comparison but it will take time. It's in another language. 

Also, theists who instrumentalised the scientific method some time ago spoke of the metaphysical exactly the same as you. That was a thousand years ago. 

That is why I found your statement interesting. 

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

I get it. 

The word Imagine, the way you used it was also used by a philosopher long ago. I am trying to find his exact statement just to make a comparison but it will take time. It's in another language. 

Also, theists who instrumentalised the scientific method some time ago spoke of the metaphysical exactly the same as you. That was a thousand years ago. 

That is why I found your statement interesting. 

I try to apply logic where I can and try when possible to avoid contradictions. Though, being human, with complex emotions, ideologies and all the other distractions, I fail miserably at times.  

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In my mind "if" I believed in god then I would imagine something that cannot be imagined at all.    

How does one imagine something that cannot be imagined at all? Do you intend to say that "god" is a catch-all term for things we cannot otherwise easily describe (sort of a magnified version god-of-the-gaps)?

[Dis n Dat]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I try to apply logic where I can and try when possible to avoid contradictions. Though, being human, with complex emotions, ideologies and all the other distractions, I fail miserably at times.  

Said well. 

[Intoscience]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

How does one imagine something that cannot be imagined at all? Do you intend to say that "god" is a catch-all term for things we cannot otherwise easily describe (sort of a magnified version god-of-the-gaps)?

Well yeah that's sort of the point, isn't it? (my bold) 

Maybe it could be interpreted this way but that was not my initial intent, no, well sort of to a degree I guess. 

I imagine that if I believed in god then to me god would be unimaginable in my mind. Since god in this sense is all powerful and encompassing then god sits outside (if that even means anything) all that we can ever imagine. Making it impossible to imagine god and the "realm" god resides, (again if that evens means anything). So my statement was to summarise and embrace this notion.  

Edited November 3, 2022 by Intoscience